Subscribe to SearchCap

Opinion: Why Google Should Crack Down Harder On The Mugshot Extortion Racket

Update: The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center now says it’s gotten hundreds of reports of this problem, and is seeking complaints from people who have been affected.

Recently a friend contacted me because his daughter was in tears about her mugshot photo being posted on the Internet. She was arrested a few years ago, the matter was settled, and the arrest record was expunged. Nevertheless, her mugshot was prominently displayed on several sites whenever anybody Googled her name.

Unbeknownst to him, trying to get that mugshot down took him into the Mugshot Zone, a murky world where sites are posting the shots in hopes of getting paid to remove them — and Google provides the traffic that helps them along the way.

Mugshots For Profit

When somebody gets arrested, the police take a booking photograph, commonly known as a mugshot. This photo isn’t proof of guilt; it is standard police procedure during the booking process and only means that one officer felt there were grounds to make an arrest.

In many states, these photos are public record and published on the website of the local police department. Posting them online is part of transparent government and is a generally accepted practice that balances the shame of the person who has been arrested with the community’s “right to know,” not to mention providing witnesses or other victims the opportunity to come forward.

This reasonable balance has been disrupted by what feels like a growing extortion racket powered by search results. Mugshot sites scrape content from police sites, search optimize, and monetize.

Some mugshots sites brazenly offer to remove listings upon payment of an “administrative” fee of $79 to over $250 per site. Others have cut deals with mugshot removal services to collect a share of the mugshot removal fee. One un-publishing service charges $399 to $1479 according to its pricelist.

My friend’s experience was that as soon as he paid to remove the mugshot from one site, like the hydra’s head, it popped up on several other sites.

The Google Connection

How does Google fit into all of this? Google conveniently provided a one stop shop that had everything the mugshot entrepreneur needs to monetize his scraper sites.

Google’s facilities included a fresh stream of victims via search results and paid advertising, credit card processing via Google Checkout and revenue from AdSense. As Wired wrote about the mugshot business in 2011:

Wiggen said he wasn’t setting out to shame or embarrass anyone: From his point of view, he’s getting free content, then monetizing it with Google AdSense banners hawking defense lawyers and bail bondsmen. But the end result is that mug shots that were once hidden behind police CGI search scripts now display in Google searches, often prominently.

In 2012 it appears that Google quietly expelled a bunch of mugshot sites from AdSense. Much of that AdSense revenue came from ads for those mugshot removal services that are in bed with the mugshot publishers.

Headaches For The Police

I recently had lunch with the chief of police in a neighboring town and asked him what he thought about online mugshots. He told me that his department publishes mugshots, but removes them once each case is adjudicated. That seems perfectly fair. However, nothing requires third parties who have copied mugshots to remove them when the case is resolved.

The Chief mentioned that he’s going to court next week because the Department was sued by a local Realtor after her mugshot displaced her own website at the top of the search results. He seemed to feel sorry for her. The police didn’t want to destroy this lady’s business by arresting her, but that may be the result.

I asked the chief whether he thought these sites were engaging in extortion. He agreed that they were, and added that the lady shouldn’t be suing the police, she should be suing Google, because they’re the ones who have created this problem.

Ways Google Could Take Action

The first amendment protects the rights of publishers to report information obtained from legitimate sources, such as police websites that host mugshots. However, when publishers ask for money, either directly, or indirectly, in exchange for removing embarrassing material, that’s extortion in our view. If the law doesn’t consider this activity to be extortion, the law needs to be fixed. And even if the law can’t be fixed, Google can create its own policies that would help.

Mugshots could easily be reigned in under existing policies regarding duplicate content, thin content sites, and scraper sites. Google (and Bing) claim not to want search results that include multiple copies of the same thing, or content scraped from other sites. Yet, they return multiple copies of the same mugshot image, and multiple search listings for mugshot sites that present the same information that’s been scraped from police department sites.

Waiting for Congress or state legislatures to modernize the law could take years. Google, Bing and other search engines could help immediately by adding a statement to their terms of service:

If you participate in the business of publishing embarrassing, derogatory, or private material about people or companies and then gathering fees, either directly or indirectly, to hide that material, we want nothing to do with you. Your website will not be listed in our search engine. You will not be eligible to participate in our advertising programs. You will not be allowed to collect money through our wallet. Our search results are not a platform for online extortion, nor for invasion of privacy.

Search engine executives, you ought to finish off this mug shot business. It’s wrong for you to continue ignoring the harm your search engine inflicts on innocent or basically good people who get arrested.

Editor’s Note: When asked to comment on this story, a Google spokesperson provided the following statement:

“We share the author’s general concerns with the business model of these sites. We have AdWords and AdSense policies on user safetyandsensitive contentand regularly take action against sites that violate those policies, as the author notes.

Google’s search results are a reflection of the content that’s available on the web.With very narrow exceptions, we take down as little as possible from search and have resources available for both users and webmasters to stay informed about content removal policies.“

Some opinions expressed in this article may be those of a guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.

SMX Advanced is the only conference designed exclusively for experienced paid search advertisers and SEOs. You'll participate in experts-only sessions and network with fellow internet marketing thought leaders. Check out the tactic-packed agenda!

About The Author

Jonathan Hochman is the founder of Hochman Consultants and a co-founder of CodeGuard. A Yale University graduate with two degrees in computer science, he has 23 years experience as a business development, marketing and technology consultant.

Sponsored

Yes, it’s a triumphant ‘business model’. They’re all very excited about their cleverness in inventing lucrative public shaming.
Funny, the people doing this are quite mean-spirited about it. With a malicious spirit and intent. Snarky. Rude. Thuggish. They’re bullies.

Skjoldur

Here’s an interesting study just published by a Harvard professor –
“Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery”, finding that Google has some complicity.http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6822v1

It’s not journalism. And they’ve kind of switched that meme out to “public service.”

Skjoldur

Ahh…the owner of Mugshots.com…??

Skjoldur

Key considerations in this ‘Tastes Great/Less Filling’ debate:

→ Why the need to make jail mugshots more “accessible”?

→ Blake’s references above are about journalism and requests to change/modify/remove stuff from stories and articles written by journalists. How does any of that apply to scraped mugshot databases on personal websites?

→ News media is accountable and transparent. Journalists and writers are responsible for what they author. They are liable for what they produce and can be located to be held accountable. They put their names on their pieces. They have identifiable offices with real addresses and real phone numbers. They can be sued (and their bosses and organizations) and can be easily served subpoenas and legal action documents.

→ If you pay for something with a legitimate news organization, publishing house, magazine, etc., your payment information is trackable. You know who you’re paying and they can be contacted. You know who you are giving credit card information to. They are not taking payment through anonymous Pay Pal accounts.

→ Legitimate news organizations, publishing houses, magazines, etc. are identifiable corporate entities. With identifiable owners and industry-standard corporate structure. NONE operate through stealth-operator ‘registered agents’ with phony addresses, that on scrutiny turn out to be the Orange Julius in the local mall food court.

→ Law enforcement websites and news have something in common: a shelf-life. An expiration date. A life cycle. A point in time in the future at which materiel drops off, is no longer current, is out of date, taken out of service.

→ Government public records are regulated by statute and administrative code. Management includes mandatory “retention schedules and disposal.” In every jurisdiction in the United States. Paper files of criminal histories and arrest records aren’t archived forever. It’s regulatory in nature. As you might imagine, the criminal justice system is not loosey-goosey that way.

Skjoldur

The real point is – why is anyone’s mugshot on anyone’s website in the first place.

Skjoldur

For which, they did NOT file appropriate records requests as required by the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA), nor did they pay the established fees and costs for public records retrieval. Funny enough, you and I would have to.

Here’s a succinct summary of what GRAMA is:GRAMA states who has access to records and how the law is enforced. It is an attempt to balance the public’s constitutional right of access to information concerning public business, the individual’s constitutional right of privacy when the government gathers personal data, and the public policy interest in allowing a government to restrict access to certain records for the public good.

http://twitter.com/Jehochman Jonathan Hochman

It’s extortion even if you only charge a buck. Charging money to unpublish embarrassing info is scummy. Moreover, you don’t have proper rights to use these people’s photos for commerce. For legitimate news, yes, for commerce, no. They could each sue you for quite a bit, and I hope they do.

keaner

This whole article seems like someone just pissed of their friends info and mugshot is online, when in reality if this person had not got arrested in the first place there would be no problem.

Skjoldur

Well, not really, if you read it. It’s about search engine strategies.
But interesting that someone who believes that, would trouble themselves to find this particular article and bother to comment.

keaner

i have read it many times actually, the point remains the same, i didn’t find this article i visit everyday, do your research

Stan Komsky

I steal mugshots from sheriffs’ websites because I can. Extorting people because google allows these gems to be found is just part of my business model.

They were arrested, they must be guilty, and diserve to pay me to make things right!

Is that enough court. My sources inform me that soon, possibly the week of 3/4/2013 another class action suit will be filed in Florida.

With the exception of Detroit Free Press, all of the courts that have heard the mugshot issue have ruled against it. In Detroit Free Press the courts ruled that mugshots are only exempt from disclosure under the FOIA during the period of active criminal prosecution. Before prosecution, except for official police purposes, and after after adjudication, mugshots are not releasable documents.

http://normanhaga.nl/blog/ Devil_N_Me

Yes, you have your reasons. The first of those reasons is the symbiotic relationship between the mugshot publishers/removers that are the same agency masquerading as different agencies.

The second reason is link building.

Patrick Coombe

Great post Danny, as always. This is a terrible, disgusting industry and I hope these sites all get slapped on the next update. Don’t see why an INNOCENT person should have their reputations suffer as a result of these sites

http://www.facebook.com/bartonjames Barton James

FALSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACCUSATIONS MUST BE STOPPED

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011 at 8:57pm a restaurant security camera in Palatka, Florida recorded in full, my then girlfriend, inebriated and enraged Pamela K. Geldart of Daytona, punching me with her right fist, three times in the left side of my head. When I told her I couldn’t believe she was hitting me she replied, “Who are they gonna believe, Bart, a 94 pound little girl or a 220 pound Daddy, you hit me, Bart… I’ll lie and tell them you hit me.” The restaurant video captured in full that I sat perfectly still, a complete non-threat, refusing to get up from the bench nor react from her punches, so Ms. Geldart proceeded to her car, retrieved, threatened then smashed an equipment bag to circuit board pieces, my MacBook Pro and DSLR cameras and lenses (I was Professor of Photography at Daytona State College). I immediately called 911 but when Deputy Kenneth Roberts arrived, she lied, telling the police that “a 220 pound Daddy hits her; not the other way around.” Stunned, I suggested we obtain and watch the restaurant video together, and she suddenly confessed to the officer that she had lied, and that Ms. Geldart was in fact the one hitting me. Deputy Roberts refused to arrest her for hitting me, but did charge Pam ela K. Geldart with “Criminal Mischief” (Putnam County Case#: 11-3499) given the equipment damage.

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011 at 5pm, in the witness of Dr. Norman Brown, a published author on the subject of relationships and love, having twenty years experience as a Professor at Embry-Riddle University, Mr. Brown and I both witnessed Ms. Pamela K. Geldart, now sober confess that the night prior, in Palatka, she had behaved violently, agreed it would be captured on the restaurant’s security camera, she confessed she had lied to Deputy Roberts, and she agreed it had been appropriate that she earlier at 10am, had purchased and given me my $2500 replacement MacBook Pro from Best Buy. In the presence of Dr. Norman, she offered reconciliation in the form of using her garage to store some of my office files. Dr. Norman agreed, and the three of us felt this a good step forward; it was unanimously agreed between Dr. Brown, myself and Ms. Geldart that she understood her errs, and Friday morning she and I would ride together and I would request the state drop it’s Palatka Criminal Mischief charge levied against her.

Thursday, May 12th, at 8:30 pm, exhausted from moving six truckloads of office furniture and equipment, I arrived at Ms. Geldart’s garage to work with some office equipment I had dropped off at an earlier time. Ms. Geldart in as much insisted I watch a movie with she and her niece, Lindy. TExhausted and thirsty I laid on the floor, nearly passed out in front of her TV, drifting to and from sleep. Throughout the movie Ms. Geldart began drinking two bottles of wine (I drank water only, dehydrated and physically worn from moving all day). By 11, Pam Geldart was blurting out statements like, “I can’t believe I had to buy you a computer, your other one was old and worthless.” Her niece added, “I guess he just wants your money”. I contacted Dr. Brown, and he agreed, I should leave immediately, but Ms. Geldart refused to let me leave. She blocked the doors, the doorway to her garage, and hit the button to close the garage door to entrap me in her home. I pushed past her, through the doorway between the kitchen and the garage, hit the garage door button back up, and proceeded to my truck intending to leave … Ms. Pamela K. Geldart dropped to her knees, and said, “I’m calling 911″. She told the dispatcher that I filed charges against her in Palatka just two days ago, that I had claimed she hit me, but really that I hit her” I was floored. She rambled on for 8 minutes, answering “NO” to dispatcher questions like, “Are you injured”. The dispatcher asked, “Were you fighting?” She answered “No.” Dispatcher asked, “What were you arguing about?” Pam Geldart’s 911 recorded actual response on the call, “Quite frankly I can’t even recollect, we argue all the time.” I stood next to her, while she ranted telling the dispatcher several contradicting stories within that same 8 minute call. The dispatcher finally said, “alright that’s enough”… and asked her for her address. Ms. Pam Geldart maliciously and vindictively crafted her lies, claiming I pushed her, I threw her, I threw her off a 4 inch step, that I knifed her walls, broke her window. I called Dr. Brown and we agreed to wait for the police at this juncture. I heard her say to the 911 operator, “I want an officer here to see that I am a 94 pound little hamster, and he’s a 220 pound Daddy.. I couldn’t possibly hit him, he hits me!” My jaw dropped, and I asked Dr. Brown his best advice. The police arrived, saw nothing turned over, no sign of a struggle, no injury (she admittedly stated no injury), simply said I pushed her and she was afraid. immediately arrested me, said I looked drunk, and put me in the back of the police car while they talked to her inside her home for the next hour.

Friday, May 13th, at 3am, while spending a night in jail, no evidence, no injury, my public domain mugshot from 2am for “Domestic Battery” and now publicly distributed, showing up as a first search line item in Google (mugshots.com uses it to extort $400 for it’s removal) not even able to respond, no rights whatsoever (Volusia Court Case: 110-38210MMAES). Ms. Geldart arrived to speak at the first hearing by judge and committee, the next morning at 9am, but they threatened her if she had lied, yet empowered her if she maintained her story? Judge Feigenbaum and the State initially awarded me “ROR, Non-violent contact” (I can see/communicate with her). But as she became nervous, to save face before the judge and a dozen clerks and representatives in this hearing, I was shocked she chose to save face, repeating her lies from the night before. I yelled “She lied!” but was reprimanded to keep quiet and not talk over the court while state’s Attorney Diaz changed it to , “ROR, No Contact”. She was encouraged to maintain the lie, for fear of reprimand. I was encouraged to ACCEPT the lie, for fear of further reprimand. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS SYSTEM. I had NO RIGHTS. Released finally, 9 hours after the morning hearing, almost 24 hours after being arrested…. at 6pm and now with a 30 day mandated restraint to refrain from speaking with her, I could not communicate with her, not even through a third party friend, by law. My truck at her house, my stuff in her garage, there was nothing I could do for a month… nothing. The law says anyone charged with Domestic Battery must be mandated not allowed to travel outside the jurisdiction, a court hearing looms weeks away, I had to “drug test” weekly (peeing in a cup), to meet weekly with a probation officer, and for security sought legal defense costing over $5000 in legal fees. She was required to enroll in “Battered Women” courses, and readily learned what other women experience, what they told the police, the judges how to make a charge that will stick.

It took nearly six weeks for my case to finally get attention of the prosecuting attorney… six weeks. State’s Attorney Diaz of Volusia County finally looked at the documents, my counter-evidence submitted, and within one hour.. one hour after a six week wait – quickly found “NO INFO” legalese for “NO EVIDENCE, SHE LIED” and Ms. Pamela K. Geldart was told that if she continued perjury charges would be considered against her. My attorney had provided the restaurant video, the Palatka and Volusia 911 transcripts, and there it was in her own words to both the 911 dispatcher and the officer, “no injury” or “no skirmish” of any kind (she and I weren’t even arguing). Additionally, we did not, nor ever legally share the same address… the charge itself “Domestic Battery” applies to people who live together. Lastly, James Geldart, had filed for a restraining injunction against Ms. Pamela Geldart in Palm Coast, Florida, against her violent drunken temper and abuse of her children. Not long after, Mr. James Geldart had a mugshot online as well, for “Domestic Battery”. Pattern?

In brief, Ms. Pamela K. Geldart not only is verbally and physically abusive, but lies to the authorities, knowing the “zero tolerance” laws favor women over me. On her words alone, malicious, vindictive, and false, without evidence, and without need of injury, an argument, or even recollection of an argument, her word alone is enough to falsely incarcerate any man for 24 hours, resulting in his mugshot becoming public domain on vulture, extortion websites like mugshots.com showing up instantly on Google. Her file? Sealed. Her name? Protected by law. Not surprisingly, May 13th was my last day of employment, after six years a Professor at Daytona State College, and every subsequent job application I have to explain first, before the interview begins, that I have a mugshot out there for Domestic Battery. A twenty year stellar career, partner in a firm, volunteerism, hundreds of articles, dozens of newspaper accounts published on my excellent and noble work with youth, community, and in collegiate environments… but if a hiring manager Googles my name, a mugshot for “Domestic Battery” pops up… would you hire me?

It’s the Salem Witch trials in place now,, simply based on the words – no evidence – of an accuser.
1. Something must be done tighten the requirements to defend against bitter, vindictive use of these laws.
2. Someone must begin a class action lawsuit against extortion “for removal” of public domain mugshots.
3. The operators themselves of mugshots.com are Federal Felons, and don’t even put there own mug on their site!

Stan Komsky

Georgia law is finally working out that mugshot extortion needed to go away with HB 150.

Consider what happens when you’re a business owner and someone who shares your name is on the mugshot sites and they’re ranking so high on search engines that they’re interfering with the other person’s business. At that point you’re interfering with the business of innocent parties. That’s called extortion.

Hail_to_the_chef

It is trashing reputations of innocent people who are unfortunate enough to share the name of the arrested person.

Titus Pullo

Never fear, I’m building a business that will destroy what mugshots rely on. Search engines will crack down when the fight back starts to flood results with meaningless content. That is, if legislators don’t stop mugshots first. One by one, counties are implementing captcha to block scraping. Some are altogether no longer posting these photos. Cheers Jon Hochman, thanks for joining the fight.

Titus Pullo

A citizen has recourse against the government for wrongful imprisonment, wrongful death, mistaken identity, etc.

A citizen does not have recourse against private extortion.

You’ve also proven to exhibit a less-than-layman’s understanding of the purpose of public records.